“One of man’s worst shortcomings isn’t the fact that he is extremely aggressive but that he is too submissive. The tragedies that have really led to destruction in the past, not of thousands but of millions of people, didn’t originate from the fact that man was aggressive but from the fact that man takes orders from dictators.”
_Rita Levi Montalcini, neurologist and former senator of the Italian Republic .

We tend to imagine history as one long sequence of decisions made by remarkable men, charismatic leaders, rulers, presidents and CEOs who, with the weight of their will alone, steer the fates of entire nations or companies. But this heroic narration is just part of the truth. Behind every power lies a structure made up of consent, habit and obedience. Because an order, even the most absurd, has to have someone who is willing to follow it.
Historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt explains this with absolute precision in her famous book “A Report on the Banality of Evil”, describing the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the military officer in Nazi Germany who organised the deportation of millions of Jews to the death camps. Eichmann wasn’t a fanatic, nor was he a man driven by deeply-rooted hate. He was a scrupulous executioner, convinced that he was “doing his duty”. His case made a principle that is still valid today dramatically clear, that obedience can be more destructive than aggression.

This type of mechanism was studied 1961 by American psychologist Stanley Milgram, who conducted the so-called obedience experiments (1), considered to be a benchmark in social psychology. No less than 65% of those who took part in the tests, members of the general public grouped together in a room along with an apparently competent authority, went so far as to subject another participant to electric shocks, despite perspiring, trembling and showing signs of anguish, simply because someone had ordered them to do so. This revealed that a large percentage of people are willing to obey orders given by an authority, even if these orders implicate actions that could harm others or go against their moral principles.

A study led by neuroscientist Patrick Haggard, conducted in 2016, following Milgram’s discoveries, showed that when a person follows an order given by an authority, the brain reacts differently to the way it does when the same action is performed spontaneously. In particular, there is a reduction in activity in the areas of the brain involved in the sense of agency (i.e.: in the perception of being the perpetrator of an action). Moreover, the participants perceived a longer interval of time between the action and its effect – a phenomenon known as attenuated temporal binding — which signals a reduced subjective experience of responsibility.  
In short: obedience attenuates the awareness of the causal role, making it easier to justify morally questionable actions.

But what happens in our brain when we are the ones giving the orders? What happens when we find ourselves in a position of power?

A recent study published in Frontiers in Psychology by Neil Shortland and colleagues (2023) challenges a popular idea: that power makes people more decisive. The experiment is based on a highly realistic simulation — called LUCIFER — in which 234 US soldiers have to cope with extremely nerve-wracking situations, where none of the options available offer a clear advantage. It’s a matter of making the least-worst decision, putting not only rational thought to the test but also moral conscience.

The researchers manipulated the participants’ perceived degree of power, making them act as high or low-level commanders, alternating their role, and achieving surprising results. By contrast to that suggested by the “approach-inhibition” theory (2), developed by Dacher Keltner, a US psychology professor, and colleagues in 2003 — according to which power stimulates action and a lack of power activates the inhibition system, triggering increased attention to risk – those who felt that they had more power:
• found it harder to make decisions,
• took longer to decide,
• tended to prefer avoidance options, especially in situations in which they had more experience.

From the neuropsychological point of view, the experience of power does not always activate the “approach” system (BAS – Behavioural Activation System), which encourages us to take action. In highly uncertain situations, in which every decision has a cost, power can actually activate FFFS/BIS. FFFS (the Fight-Flight-Freeze System) and BIS (the Behavioural Inhibition System) are cerebral circuits linked to fear, freezing and risk assessment.
When they are activated, they encourage us to avoid take action, inspiring hesitation in the face of uncertainty and a tendency to wait and see.
The result is what the experts call decision inertia: a decisional blockage caused by the tension that exists between the desire to act and fear of the consequences.
It’s as if power becomes a cage: the higher up you are, the heavier the weight of responsibility and the fear of making mistakes feels. And if you make a mistake, it’s not just you who pays for it, the whole system depends on your decisions.
Interestingly, the decisional blockage was particularly evident in situations with which the participants were most familiar, such as military scenarios. Rather than helping, experience seemed to increase the awareness of the potential risks, making the decision inertia even worse.

If, on one hand, power can paralyse the person in command, on the other, it can induce passive submission in the person carrying out the orders. In both cases, the result is the same: diminished individual responsibility.
This is why submission occurs not only in extreme historic events. It insinuates itself into little, everyday things, into automatic justifications, into delegating tasks to others all the time. Every time we say, “it’s not my job”, “I’ve got no choice”, “I just do what I’m told”, we participate — often unwittingly — in the creation of a system in which no one feels really responsible.
As highlighted by the words of Rita Levi Montalcini, the real threat isn’t aggression but passive submission. The habit of delegating thinking and responsibility, making the existence of oppressive structures and inhuman decisions possible.

At a time when we are constantly demanding accountability, transparency and responsible leadership, we have this paradox to reckon with: if power is not supported by a culture of critical thought and shared responsibility, it can become a braking element rather than a driving force.
There is a consequent need to rethink leadership, not as solitary domination but as the ability to tackle uncertainty with courage. We don’t need a hero to make decisions alone, but a network of people who determinedly uphold their opinion.

1. Milgram, S. (1963) Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
2. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368800453_Avoidant_authority_The_effect_of_organizational_power_on_decision-making_in_high-uncertainty_situations 
4. https://www.lescienze.it/news/2016/02/19/news/percezione_responsabilita_ridotta_azioni_milgram_norimberga-2978144/